Post your essay. Get expert feedback. For free.We're trying to help students improve their writing the hard way. Do you know students who want critical essay reviews from a professor of English Literature? Click like to share. Click here to sign up and post your own essay. We offer no paid services. All reviews are completely free.
Should Government Officials Should Rely On Their Own Judgment? - With A Free Essay Review
Government Officials Should Rely On Their Own Judgment Rather Than Unquestioningly Carry Out The Will Of The People They Serve.
Prompt：Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
Whether government officials should rely on their own judgment or undoubtedly listen to the voice of the people they serve - it is a question concerning efficiency and equality. Though always obeying the will of the people may make the government achieve nothing, it is not a good idea to turn a deaf ear to the will of the people. Both extremes may lead the government come to an end.
If government officials always carry out regulations according to their own, government is likely to be an autocracy. Looking back to the history, we would find there exists many tyrants such as Hitler – they rely on their own judgment without listening to the suggestion of their people, resulting in the ruin of themselves as well as the governments or even the nations. The same case also happened in China during the Cultural Revolution in 1960s. Mao and his officials carried out all the rules according to their own will - if someone questioned about the rule, his patriotism would be doubted. Gradually, Chinese government became an autocracy resulting in countless mendacity and tragedies. It was said that china turned backward at least ten years because of the Cultural Revolution.
However, it is neither a good idea to unquestioningly carry out the will of the people. Though living in the same country, people are not likely to share the same idea. They are more likely to care about their own interest, failing to take others' benefit into account. For example, the elders are more likely to have their retirement pay increased day by day, while the young may regard it a heavy burden on them and ask for cutting down the retirement pay. When facing contradict voice, what should the government do? Passively doing nothing or relying on their judgment? Sometimes, the government would choose to follow the majority because it seems to be equal to most of the people. However, in fact, people care more about their own interest rather than the overall benefits. What if they are continuously asking for increase in welfare? If the government improves the benefits, will they still willing to work when the income of an official is lower than one who does not have a job?
In summary, instead of completely relying on their own judgment or unquestioningly listening to the will of the people, government officials had better find a balancing point between efficiency and equality. A better way is to asking the will of the people before carrying out the rule, but during the process, decisions should still be made according to the situation and the judgment of the government. The problem is to what extent should governors listen to the people - it is a question that should be adjusted according to the situation. To some problems, such as whether to build a new metro line, they had better listen to the voice of the people - not unquestioningly carrying out the people's will of course. However, when making regulation - which is more likely to violate the benefit of some people, the government should have a strong attitude and rely more on their own judgment. All in all, the most important thing is that the government officials are honest and altruistic - they should be those who always care about the profit of the country instead of their own will.
Your first body paragraph, about Hitler and Mao, does not help you advance your argument. In fact, you come to no clear conclusion in that paragraph, beyond the initial point that a government that does not exclusively listen to the will of the people can become, as you say, autocratic. But even if power ends up in the hands of a single dictator or autocrat, the question still needs to be answered. The question in other words should be treated as independent of any particular type of government. In the case of a sovereign dictator, for instance, the question is whether the dictator should rely on his own judgment, or carry out the will of the people. You could perhaps salvage the argument by generalizing it: a government deaf to the will of the people is liable to become corrupt and serve only its own interests. If you do that, you still need to explain why you think that is the case. That is, explain why you think the will of the people, if heeded, would serve to restrain the government in one way of another. It is not enough, in other words, simply to point to the case of Hitler or Mao. It may be, for instance, that Hitler and Mao believed they were listening to the will of the people (although that's unlikely, given the effort both expended on the task of shaping the public's opinion).
The argument of your second body paragraph is poorly articulated. Instead of stating your position and your reasons for maintaining that position, you state your position ("it is not a good idea to unquestioningly carry out the will of the people"), and then use a series of questions that seem to be designed to make your reader think that the position might be a reasonable one. Try to avoid using questions in place of explicitly articulating your reasons.
The final paragraph is the best paragraph of the essay because it comes closest to responding directly to the prompt (which is what all paragraphs should do). Here you do mention "specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous." For instance, you say that in the case of deciding whether to build a new metro line, the government ought to attend to the will of the people. What you also need to do here, however, is explain why you come to that conclusion in this particular case. You then claim that in the case of "making regulation" the government should act of its own accord. Again, however, you don't explain why you think the government should do that in such a case (and you also don't sufficiently specify the nature of the case). You might think, for example, that the people as a whole often don't understand why regulations of a particular sort might be necessary and for that reason the government must act independently for the good of the people. Here's an example of the kind of argument that is appropriate (i.e., we identify specific circumstances in which it would be advantageous for the government to act of its own accord, and explain why it would be advantageous in those circumstances):
"The people sometimes will strongly resist measures that may be necessary for the wellbeing of the state because they feel the measures are unfair. Such cases can arise when the people as a whole are largely ignorant of the reasons for the proposed measures. For example, the people may strongly resist using taxpayer money to shore up the financial system in times of financial crisis, even though such government support may be needed to avoid a collapse of the system. In those circumstances, the government should act of its own accord because the wellbeing of the state as a whole is more important the ethical value of allowing the people as a whole to dictate public policy."